he returned to the Philippines on December 23, 2002 because he was not allegedly paid his salaries and also because of violations in the terms and conditions of his employment contract.    LNS and Sharikat filed their respective Answers.   In its Verified Answer,[7] LNS averred that it is a sole proprietorship owned and managed by Ludevina E. Casabuena.  It admitted that Padua applied for employment abroad but he withdrew all the documents he submitted to LNS on July 27, 2002.  As proof, LNS attached the withdrawal letter duly signed by Padua.    LNS alleged that it did not know that Padua applied with Sharikat or that he was eventually deployed by the latter to Saudi Arabia.  LNS denied that it endorsed Padua’s application papers to Sharikat.  LNS claimed that after Padua withdrew his documents, it no longer had any knowledge whether he applied with another employment agency. LNS insisted that the contract of employment submitted by Padua to the POEA clearly indicated that the same was only between him and Sharikat and not LNS.   Thus, LNS claimed that it could not be held liable for non-issuance of receipt or misrepresentation.    For its part,  Sharikat  admitted that  it  processed Padua’s  papers for employment in Saudi Arabia.[8]  However, it argued that it cannot be held liable for any alleged violation of labor standards because its principal in Saudi Arabia faithfully complied with the terms and conditions of Padua’s employment.[9]  Sharikat also argued that Padua’s contentions are vague and unsubstantiated and deserve no probative weight at all.  Aside from his bare allegations, Padua did not present evidence to show that he was not paid his salaries or that he was illegally dismissed.[10]   In his Reply to Answer of LNS,[11] Padua admitted signing the withdrawal letter but alleged that he did not actually receive the documents because he was made to understand that the same would be endorsed to Sharikat.       Ruling of POEA